« Jostling the Table | Main | Ed Perlmutter Makes it Official »

Comments

Donald E. L. Johnson

Just heard Tancredo explain his vote for the Schiavo bill, and his explanation indicates he only looked at information provided by the parents and some former caregivers whose motives I don't quite understand. He doesn't get it, on purpose, because he's so pro life that he's rationalizing the irrational.

Since you asked, here's what I'm posting on various boards:

So many Republican politicians, conservative commentators and religious leaders have lost credibility by seeking to use the Schiavo case to advance their political careers, their ratings and their ideological viewpoints.

What's amazing to me is to watch and listen to the religious radicals implicitly admit the weakness of their legal cases and fall back on weak, emotional and irrational reasons for inserting the Federal government into a local and family decision making process. It also has been fascinating to watch and listen to so called experts and caregivers display such intellectual and personal dishonesty in this case as they put their religious beliefs and career objectives ahead of their professionalism. There are a lot of quaks as well as political hacks out there.

Huge majorities of thinking Americans believe Congress, especially the GOP leaders, and President Bush abused their powers in the Schiavo case. These same voters will think twice about supporting a party that acts like the Taliban. We strongly supported Bush last year because of our concerns about the War on Islamic Terrorism and because the Dems put up a dishonest, unpatriotic candidate.

The 2006 election most likely will be about domestic issues, as will the 2008 election, unless the terrorists bring the war back to the front burner of American politics. Americans support the GOP's tax cuts and economic policies for the most part, but a growing majority of us are alarmed at the power of the small, religious radical minority, which is driving the GOP to the fringes. I fear a Dem landslide in 2006 because of the unpopularity of a lot of the GOP's social issues, including this case.

By 2008, it is quite likely that the Dems will be able to campaign on the idea that real family values are those that let families, not the government, decide on critical moral issues.

It is a violation of family values to make the Federal government the school marm, the priest and the arbitor of what we can read, watch on TV and in the movies and do withour bodies and our lives.

Finally, a question. Do you think Michael Schiavo, the husband, and the Schindlers (sp?), the parents, are acting in the interests of Terri, the patient, or simply in their own selfish interests? Is it more cruel to let the patient die a painless, quiet death, or to let her live in a vegetative state until bed sores or something else takes her? And are taxpayers supposed to fund the long-term care just to satisfy the religious and other feelings of families who won't let go?

Dem Insider

Republicans want a government just small enough to fit in your bedroom.

They trust Boards of Directors, not people.

Strider

I used to volunteer for the Hospice in Durango. I can tell you from experience that having ANYONE but the family make decisions about familial life and death is crazy.

Congressman and women are in NO position to make these kinds of decisions for a family. These things are incredibly complex. The person dying can go through a tremendous amount of suffering all because (understandibly) their relatives or friends cannot let go.

These decisions are for families NOT congress or the president. Period.

Anin

At least Congress tried to confine their legislation to extending jurisdiction, and didn't try to prescribe to the courts a decision. However, I don't think Congress has the jurisdiction, and that this bill clearly violates the 10th Amendment.

Nonetheless, I think the District and Appeals courts have acted admirably in this case. They acted quickly, yet cautiously--essentially moving it right along to see if the Supremes will intercede.

Although I don't think she will live long enough, I would love to see this at SCOTUS. Seeing whatever schizophrenic prattle Scalia will have to come up with is almost worth having the tube put back in.

Recalling the Elian Gonzalez fiasco, it seems that while Americans are easily moved initially by these kinds of irrational "events," after a week or so everyone realizes that they just don't care that much.

Walter

I'm not a Repub, but am one of the small government crowd, so I'll try to answer. The Repubs have abandoned any pretense of limited government since grabbing both the executive and legislative branches of the fed gov, so there's absolutely no incentive for them to play that card now. If a massive expansion of the budget and welfare state haven't driven the small gov types away from the R's there's no chance the Schiavo case will have any effect.

learnedhand

>Seeing whatever schizophrenic prattle Scalia >will have to come up with is almost worth >having the tube put back in.

that is a pretty misinformed analysis of Justice Scalia. You may not agree with him on most things (I certainly do not) but he is incredibly consistent. Go read some of the great first amendment cases of his term and you will see.

The comments to this entry are closed.